consensus projecthttp://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/12662/all
enThe Campaigns That Tried To Break The Climate Science Consensushttp://www.desmogblog.com/2013/06/06/campaigns-tried-break-climate-science-consensus
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/littlechicken.jpg?itok=ybKOMH36" width="200" height="218" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>So just in case anyone wasn’t sure, a major study of almost 12,000 scientific papers on global warming between 1991 and 2011 finds less than one per cent disagree that humans are the main cause.</p>
<p>Published in the journal <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article" target="_blank">Environmental Research Letters</a>, the study led by John Cook, the Australia-based founder of Skeptical Science, confirms the debate about the causes of global warming had all but vanished in the scientific literature by the early 1990s. <span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Almost all the research says it’s mostly caused by humans. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">For any followers of climate science in journals (the place where it actually matters) the finding wasn’t really news at all. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Yet survey after survey finds the public still thinks scientists are arguing over the causes of global warming and the media continues to attempt to resuscitate </span><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/planet-oz/2013/may/17/zombie-climate-sceptic-theories-newspapers-tv" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">long-dead ideas</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Does it matter that people have a clear understanding of the main thrust of the science? A 2012 study in the journal </span><a href="http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1720.html" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Nature Climate Change</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> found that people were more likely to accept human-caused global warming if they were informed that scientists were in broad agreement (which we know they are). </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">For decades, fossil fuel-funded groups, free market think tanks (some of which also qualify as fossil fuel funded groups) and the fossil fuel industry itself have known the importance of the public’s understanding of the state of climate science. A public that understands the state of the science is more likely to want something done about climate change. Doing something, means using a lot less fossil fuel. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">But who wanted to tell the public that a consensus didn’t exist? Here are just some of the campaigns run over the years showing how breaking the consensus in the eyes of the public was a key strategy.</span></p>
<!--break-->
<h3>
<strong style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Heartland Institute's climate denial conferences</strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> </span></h3>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The Heartland Institute is a Chicago-based free market think tank launched in 1994, which has accepted millions of dollars from conservative groups and fossil fuel interests. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">In 2008, Heartland decided to host a conference for climate sceptics in New York – it would be the first of eight conferences for skeptics and deniers (six of them were held in the <span class="caps">US</span>, one in Germany and one in Australia). The gatherings have been sponsored by dozens of other free market think tanks, including Australia’s Institute of Public Affairs. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Analysis by </span><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">DeSmogBlog</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> shows how the think tanks has accepted millions of dollars from vested interests, including more than $500,000 from Exxon. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Right from the start, the main purpose of the conferences was to give the impression of a debate among climate scientists. Before the first conference, Heartland Institute fellow and Forbes columnist James Taylor </span><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Heartland.pdf" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">wrote to prospective speakers</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> with an offer of $1000 and travel expenses for anyone willing to front up. The main purpose of the conference was not to further scientific knowledge, as Taylor explained:</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><em style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective.</em><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> </span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">To be even clearer, the objective was to try and create the impression of a debate among scientists. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">John Cook has provided DeSmogBlog with data from his study showing the state of the peer-reviewed science for the years when the campaigns were being plotted. This analysis shows that in fact, in 2008 when Heartland began its conferences, hardly any scientists in the peer-reviewed literature were rejecting the evidence that humans were causing global warming. There were 353 scientific papers that year saying explicitly that humans were causing global warming. Only three argued there was a different cause. </span></p>
<h3>
<strong style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The Oregon Petition Project</strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> </span></h3>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">In 1998, the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine published a petition containing the names of 17,000 “scientists” which would later build to more than 31,000. The <span class="caps">OISM</span> </span><a href="http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">petition project</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> declared there was “no convincing scientific evidence” that greenhouse gas emissions would cause catastrophic climate change. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Regulations to cut emissions would harm the environment, the petition said. </span></p>
<p><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=158" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">Skeptical Science</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> analysed the qualifications of the signatories, and found 18,000 had qualified in fields unrelated to climate science, such as engineering, computer science and mathematics. Of the 13,245 scientists left (which represented only 0.1 per cent of science graduates) Skeptical Science found only a tiny fraction had qualified in a science remotely relevant to climate change. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Along with the petition was a letter written by Dr Frederick Seitz, a celebrated physicist and president of the <span class="caps">US</span> National Academy of Sciences from 1962 to 1969. Seitz claimed “research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful” and that in fact extra <span class="caps">CO</span>2 would be environmentally helpful. Seitz had worked as a consultant for cigarette giant <span class="caps">RJ</span> Reynolds – earning $540,000 over the years – and helped hand out more than $45 million of the cigarette maker’s money for medical “research”. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Seitz was a co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute (<span class="caps">GMI</span>), a conservative think tank that had been pushing climate science denial since the late 80s with the support of wealthy conservative foundations. In 1998 - the same year Seitz signed the petition letter - <span class="caps">GMI</span> accepted its first grant from Exxon and would go on to bank </span><a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">$840,000 from the oil giant</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Nine years before Seitz gave his name to the petition, an </span><a href="http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2023266534.html" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">internal tobacco industry memo</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> discussing a potential meeting with Seitz had said he was “quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice”. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">J</span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">ohn Cook’s study finds that in 1998 there were just three peer reviewed science papers rejecting the evidence that humans were the main cause of global warming. Some 96 said humans were the cause. </span></p>
<h3>
<strong style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The Frank Luntz memo</strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> </span></h3>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">In 2001, <span class="caps">US</span> pollster, communications guru and political strategist Frank Luntz wrote </span><a href="http://www.motherjones.com/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">a report</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> which would shape the Republican message on climate change. Luntz told </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WiTVL9iT1w" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span class="caps">CBC</span>’s Fifth Estate</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> program his research was originally “written for the energy community, written for business community and written for basically general consumption among those who at that time challenged the science of global warming”. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The George Bush-led Republican administration adopted Luntz’s advice in 2001. In the report, compiled in 2000, Luntz advised that the phrase “global warming” should be replaced with the “less frightening” term “climate change”. But Luntz also made clear his view of the importance of the scientific consensus in the minds of voters. </span><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">He wrote: </span></p>
<blockquote>
<p><em style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.</em><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> </span></p>
</blockquote>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">In 2006 during a </span><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/5312208.stm" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank"><span class="caps">BBC</span> documentary</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">, Luntz defended his advice in the document saying it reflected the state of the science at the time. He said he now accepted that humans were changing the climate but added, “the science [in 2000] was not definitive. There were plenty of people at that point who were challenging it.” </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">So what was the peer-reviewed science looking like back in the year 2001 when George Bush took Luntz’s spin to the public? John Cook’s study shows there were 121 science papers that year which blamed humans for global warming. Only two rejected that humans were the main cause. </span></p>
<h3>
<strong style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">American Petroleum Institute</strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> </span></h3>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span class="dquo">“</span></span><em style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Victory will be achieved when… average citizens ‘understand’ (recognize) uncertainties in climate science; recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the ‘conventional wisdom’.”</em><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">This was one conclusion of the “Global Climate Science Communications Plan” – a multi-million dollar proposal in 1998 to make climate change a “non-issue” by reaching out to media and the public. The plan, </span><a href="http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/dealing-in-doubt/" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">uncovered and documented by Greenpeace</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">, was developed by several conservative think tank associates, climate science denial groups and staff from Exxon, major <span class="caps">US</span> coal corporation The Southern Company, Chevron and the American Petroleum Institute. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The plan cited a survey of “1,100 informed Americans” which had found that Americans “currently perceive climate change to be a great threat”. But the survey also revealed that persuading the public that there was no consensus on the science of climate change would be key to eroding concern. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The survey found that telling the public that scientists were in disagreement about the causes of climate change helped to erode their concern. When primed with this message, more than half said they were more likely to oppose the <span class="caps">UN</span> Kyoto treaty to cut emissions.</span><strong style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> </strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> </span></p>
<h3>
<strong style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span class="caps">ICE</span></strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> </span></h3>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"><span class="dquo">“</span>Reposition global warming as theory (not fact),” was the main proposition of a campaign developed in 1991 by a coalition of <span class="caps">US</span> coal companies. Western Fuels Association and The Southern Company joined utilities association Edison Electric Institute to develop the campaign under a new group – the Information Council on the Environment. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Newspaper and radio advertisements were developed and a <a href="http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&amp;d=2950" target="_blank">detailed <span class="caps">PR</span> campaign devised</a>. Contrarian scientists Dr Robert Balling, Dr Pat Michaels and Dr Sherwood Idso would act as scientific advisors, make public appearances and write newspaper columns, </span><a href="http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=4461&amp;Method=Full&amp;PageCall=&amp;Title=The%20Coal%20Industry's%20%22ICE%22%20Campaign%20(1999)" style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;" target="_blank">the plan outlined</a><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">One advert chimed “Who told you the earth was warming… Chicken Little?” and claimed that “evidence that the earth is warming is weak”. In any case, proof that carbon dioxide was the primary cause was “non existent”, the advert claimed. The intention was to convince the public that there was a raging debate among climate scientists about the causes of climate change.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">John Cook’s study found that in 1991, this just wasn’t the case. There were 65 peer-reviewed studies blaming global warming on human activity in 1991. Only four blamed something else. </span></p>
<h3>
<strong style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">Dirty lessons</strong><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;"> </span></h3>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">The lesson from these campaigns is pretty clear. If you give the public the impression that fossil fuel burning might not be the cause of climate change, then the vested interests think this waters down their concern and protects the viability of their product. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">For free market fundamentalists and a significant chunk of conservative politics, the same rule applies. Hacking away at the public’s understanding of the causes of climate change reduces the pressure on governments to regulate greenhouse gases and keeps the “free market” ideologues happy. </span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">For the rest of us, cutting the risks of dangerous climate change became collateral damage.</span></p>
<p><span style="letter-spacing: 0.03em; line-height: 1.5em;">For more on John Cook's study, visit <a href="http://theconsensusproject.com/" target="_blank">The Consensus Project</a>.</span></p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/2540">desmogblog</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12795">climate science denial</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12662">consensus project</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/640">exxon</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12796">the southern company</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/western-fuels-association">western fuels association</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/916">kyoto</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1307">frank luntz</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12797">luntz memo</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/chevron">chevron</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/fred-seitz">fred seitz</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/rj-reynolds">rj reynolds</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/6914">George Marshall Institute</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/tags/patrick-michaels">patrick michaels</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/821">Heartland Institute</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12798">denial conferences</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/7823">john cook</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12637">Environmental Research Letters</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/tags/institute-of-public-affairs">Institute of Public Affairs</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4499">API</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/643">American Petroleum Institute</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/1206">oregon petition</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4986">petition project</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4511">ice</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4916">Information Council on the Environment (ICE)</a></div></div></div>Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:00:00 +0000Graham Readfearn7227 at http://www.desmogblog.comEnemies of Science Want to Confuse You About The 97-Percent Consensus Studyhttp://www.desmogblog.com/2013/05/29/enemies-science-want-confuse-you-about-cook-s-97-percent-consensus-study
<div class="field field-name-field-bimage field-type-image field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><img src="http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/styles/blog_teaser/public/blogimages/untitled_0.jpeg?itok=YlG6bauu" width="200" height="133" alt="" /></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><p>Earlier this month, John Cook of <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=home">Skeptical Science</a> and his team of volunteers at the <a href="http://theconsensusproject.com/">Consensus Project</a> <a href="http://desmogblog.com/2013/05/15/climate-denial-s-death-knell-97-percent-peer-reviewed-science-confirms-manmade-global-warming-consensus-overwhelming">released the latest definitive study of global warming scientific consensus</a>, revealing that <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/05/15/climate-denial-s-death-knell-97-percent-peer-reviewed-science-confirms-manmade-global-warming-consensus-overwhelming">97 percent</a> of peer-reviewed papers with a clear view on the subject agree that global warming is occurring and that humans are the primary cause.</p>
<p>Ever since, we've seen the predictable pushback from fossil fuel industry apologists and climate deniers.</p>
<p>The loudest response comes from the Alberta-based <a href="http://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=207">Friends of Science</a>, a shadowy non-profit with a history of Canadian oil company ties, which <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/655">DeSmogBlog has covered extensively over the years</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10753602.htm">From their press release:</a></p>
<!--break-->
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming</strong></p>
<p>Detailed analysis shows that only 0.5% (65 of the 12,000 abstracts rated) suggest that humans are responsible for more than 50% of the global warming up to 2001, contrary to the alleged 97% consensus amongst scientists in the Cook et al study. Citing fear mongering and faulty methodology Friends of Science reject the study and President Obama’s tweet as careless incitement of a misinformed and frightened public, when in fact the sun is the main driver of climate change; not human activity or carbon dioxide (<span class="caps">CO</span>2).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Friends of Science hasn’t responded to DeSmog's inquiries about their methodology, and how they came up with that 65 paper number. But we do know a lot about <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/655">Friends of Science</a>’s history and how they’ve long been closely connected to the fossil fuel industry, including tar sands giant Talisman Energy.</p>
<p>Six years ago, the organization came under intense scrutiny and criticism as it was revealed that its largest donor was Talisman Energy, funneling money through a since-shuttered “Science Education Fund” at the University of Calgary in order to work with then <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/tom-harris"><span class="caps">APCO</span> flack and Heartland-tied Tom Harris</a> on a disinformation video that was later condemned by the University.<br /><br />
The <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science">SourceWatch profile of Friends of Science</a> explains the origins of the organization, as well as its dubious funding, in great depth. Similarly, Canadian journalist <a href="http://mikejdesouza.wordpress.com/2012/12/07/talisman-energy-kick-started-university-of-calgary-climate-skeptic-fund/">Mike de Souza has explored the connections between Alberta oil interests and Friends of Science</a>.</p>
<p>(Also see <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/talisman-funded-friends-science-skeptic-film">Richard Littlemore’s post about de Souza’s reporting</a> here on DeSmogBlog.)</p>
<p>For the past half decade, it has <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/who-bankrolling-friends-science">proven increasingly difficult</a> to identify the main sources of Friends of Science funding, though their newsletters and website claim that the majority of funds are raised through private donations and supporting memberships.</p>
<p>For what it’s worth, that 65 paper figure is gaining traction in the deniersphere. <a href="http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/17/this-study-done-by-john-cook-and-others-praised-by-the-president-of-the-united-states-found-more-scientific-publications-whose-abstracts-reject-global-warming-78-than-say-humans-are-primarily-to/">ClimateDepot links prominently to a similar assessment by Brandon Schollenberger</a>.</p>
<p>The problem with these evaluations is that Schollenberger and Friends of Science (assuming they used the same methodology to get the same number) only count the papers if the abstracts (not the body of the paper) explicitly state that “that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change.”</p>
<p>Skeptical Science and the Consensus Project were prepared for these types of gripes. From the <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=faq#noposition"><span class="caps">FAQ</span> of the study</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>What is the significance of the papers that express no position on human-caused global warming?</em></p>
<p>Naomi Oreskes predicted in 2007 that as human-caused global warming became settled science, fewer papers would see the need to explicitly endorse the consensus. For example, no research papers on geography currently need to state that the Earth is round. Our results confirm this prediction: As the field progresses, scientists feel less and less need to waste the valuable real estate of the paper’s abstract with an affirmation of settled science.<br />
Moreover, most of papers that expressed “no position” in the abstract went on to endorse the consensus in the full paper. We determined this by asking scientists to rate the level of endorsement of their own papers - a way of rating the full paper rather than just the abstract. More than half of the papers that were rated as “no position” based on their abstract were self-rated as endorsing the consensus.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And while we’re here, it’s worth taking a closer look at the Consensus Project methodology, especially in terms of how each abstract was rated by 24 volunteers, and many climate scientist authors who self-rated their work.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>How did you independently check your results?</em></p>
<p>Nobody is more qualified to judge a paper’s intent than the actual scientists who authored the paper. To provide an independent measure of the level of consensus, we asked the scientists who authored the climate papers to rate the level of endorsement of their own papers. Among all papers that were self-rated as expressing a position on human-caused warming, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. This result is consistent with our abstract ratings, which found a 97.1% consensus.</p>
<p>We adopted several methodologies to eliminate the potential of bias in our abstract ratings. We developed a strict methodology (see the Supplementary Material for more details) specifying how to categorise each abstract. In addition, each abstract was rated by at least two separate raters, with any conflicts resolved by a third reviewer.</p>
<p>The entire database of 12,464 papers is available in the Supplementary Material. We have also published all our abstract ratings, which are also available via a search form. However, we have not published individual self-ratings from the authors of the papers as the “self-rating survey” was conducted under the promise of confidentiality for all participants.</p>
<p>We have also created an Interactive Rating System, encouraging people to rate the papers themselves and compare their ratings to ours. We welcome criticism of our work and we expect that further scrutiny will improve the reliability of our results. By encourage more interaction, we hope people will come to appreciate the diversity and richness of climate research.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So if you happen to read in some contrarian headline somewhere that “only 65” of the papers in Cook’s 97-percent study really confirmed manmade global warming, consider the source.</p>
</div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above"><div class="field-label">Tags:&nbsp;</div><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/5910">Skeptical Science</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12662">consensus project</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/4621">Climate Depot</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/655">Friends of Science</a></div><div class="field-item even"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/12663">brendon schellonberger</a></div><div class="field-item odd"><a href="/directory/vocabulary/838">tom harris</a></div></div></div>Wed, 29 May 2013 14:23:01 +0000Ben Jervey7179 at http://www.desmogblog.com